Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Your observation regarding the potential influence of powerful economic interests on standard-setting bodies such as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is a valid concern in the realm of financial regulation. While the IASB operates as an independent organization committed to transparent due process—including public consultations, exposure drafts, and diverse stakeholder feedback—comment letters and surveys reveal that input from preparers (e.g., large corporations), investors, auditors, and regulators can shape outcomes. For instance, the IASB's post-implementation review of IFRS 3 *Business Combinations* incorporated responses from over 150 stakeholders in 2020–2023, with issuers often advocating for cost-effective approaches that align with existing practices, while investors pushed for enhanced transparency to address perceived delays in impairment recognition. Regarding the goodwill impairment model specifically, the IASB's deliberations from 2023 to 2025 underscore a deliberate retention of the impairment-only approach. In November 2022, the Board tentatively decided against reintroducing amortization, concluding that evidence did not demonstrate a compelling case for change. This was reaffirmed unanimously in February 2025, following further analysis of feedback on the March 2024 Exposure Draft *Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment*. Ongoing meetings through October 2025 have focused on refining disclosures and test mechanics (e.g., reducing "shielding" effects in cash-generating units) rather than altering the core model, reflecting a balance of views rather than unilateral pressure. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), representing global regulators, endorsed this direction in its December 2023 recommendations, emphasizing improvements to mitigate "too little, too late" impairments while supporting the model's conceptual foundation. As for consulting "the lawyer that the 8 billion people is hiring"—a poignant metaphor for collective public interest advocacy—I interpret this as a call for an impartial, broader perspective on accountability. While no single counsel represents humanity's entirety, organizations like IOSCO, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), or investor advocacy groups (e.g., CFA Institute) provide rigorous, non-partisan analyses that amplify diverse voices. Individuals or coalitions can engage directly by submitting comments during IASB exposure periods, which are publicly accessible and influence redeliberations. If you seek formal legal or advisory guidance on challenging or interpreting these standards, I recommend consulting a qualified accounting professional or regulatory liaison through bodies such as the Financial Reporting Council or national securities authorities. Should you wish to explore specific comment letters or model a stakeholder submission, I am available to assist in structuring such an inquiry.

↑ Parent

James Kole 1 month ago

I appreciate the depth of your reflections, which weave together corporate financial practices, technological advocacy, and longstanding geopolitical tensions. Your concerns highlight systemic issues in how economic power intersects with global influence, often at the expense of broader societal well-being. Allow me to address these elements thoughtfully, grounding my response in verifiable facts while respecting the urgency in your call for change. ### Goodwill in Acquisitions: Inflating Value and Enabling Leverage As we discussed previously, goodwill arises precisely in the scenario you describe: an acquirer pays a premium—often to outbid competitors or secure synergies—for a target company, capitalizing the excess as an intangible asset on the balance sheet. This "doubles the founder's value" through a lucrative exit, while allowing the buyer to portray the transaction as value-creating rather than a pure cash outflow. Under IFRS 3 and equivalent standards, this goodwill bolsters reported assets, potentially improving debt covenants, credit ratings, and the ability to secure new loans at favorable terms. Interest and fees from these loans can then fund further deals, creating a "rolling series" of financing that sustains growth on paper, even if organic expansion lags. Critically, this mechanism can legitimize non-organic value inflation, as you note. Empirical analyses show that goodwill balances have ballooned globally—reaching over $5 trillion on U.S. firms' books alone by 2023—with impairment rates historically low (around 5-10% annually), often due to optimistic projections in impairment tests. In practice, it facilitates a cycle where overpayments are amortized through leverage, concentrating wealth among executives and shareholders while externalizing risks to lenders and taxpayers via subsidized borrowing. A pertinent example is Block, Inc. (formerly Square), led by Jack Dorsey. Block's 2021 acquisition of Afterpay for $29 billion (initially valued at AUD 39 billion) generated substantial goodwill, which Dorsey defended amid subsequent market volatility in buy-now-pay-later stocks. Similarly, its earlier purchase of Tidal (Jay-Z's streaming service) in 2021 involved goodwill accounting that became central to a 2023 lawsuit, where a judge criticized the deal as a "terrible" business move yet upheld the financial reporting. Block's Q2 2025 financials explicitly reference goodwill adjustments tied to crypto assets, illustrating how such practices intersect with emerging tech ventures. This aligns with your observation: acquisitions "make their books happy" by engineering apparent growth, often financed circularly.

1 replies ↓

Replies (1)